Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources Advisory Board - Minutes - 10/02/2002MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE October 2, 2002 For Reference: Randy Fischer, NRAB Chair - 226-5383 Ray Martinez, Council Liaison - 416-2154 Michelle Pawar, Staff Liaison - 221-6263 Board Members Present Kelly Ohlson, Nate Donovan, Linda Knowlton, Phil Murphy, Arvind Panjabi, Don Rodriguez, Steve Ryder Board Members Absent Randy Fischer, Reagan Waskom Staff Present Natural Resources Dent: Mark Sears, Michelle Pawar, Terry Klahn, Edith Felchle Utilities: Mike Smith Guests Kari Blane, CSU student Josh Grange, CSU student Jerry Kaltenhouser Alison Mason, Chair of the Electric Board Agenda Review Donovan said that Joe Frank wasn't able to attend due to a last minute conflict. Edith Felchle will talk about GOCO easements. Proposed Electric Energy Supply Policy, Mike Smith Smith reviewed a presentation on the Proposed Electric Energy Supply Policy. Discussion • Ohlson: Under the present Demand Side Management there are programs that weren't on the sheet. Some of these programs sound good, but in reality are feel good programs. I'd be surprised if they add up to one -tenth of one percent of energy reduction. I would like to get some numbers on them. • Smith: The numbers are not high, they're not programs that will make a lot of difference. The design assistance program gives long term results that are measurable. The industry has gone through a cycle of demand side management. In the industry it fell out of favor. Some of the stuff never worked, never produced results. Not until the last five years have people started to focus on things that do make a difference. Natural Resources AMory Board • October 2, 2002 Page 2 of 9 Prices are going up. Ten years ago fluorescent bulbs were expensive and didn't work well. • Donovan: As far as quantifying energy efficient benefits of these programs, is that something the department has done, or is it too difficult and costly? • Smith: Some are hard to quantify. We think there are a lot of better ideas out there. As we look at policy we need to look at them. Some of these may fall off the list. Kelly's right, a lot of these are feel good programs. A lot of times, that's what people want. • Ohlson: If you think they're not effective you should make a recommendation to get rid of them. • Smith: If the policy is adopted we want to evaluate the demand side program. I suspect that when we get done some of these programs will be recommended to be dropped off. We'll recommend what we want to do and Council will decide. • Ohlson: How many FTE's are on those programs? • Smith: Three FTE's on the top side. Design assistance can take a lot of time. • Donovan: hi some other utilities and places there are green lighting practices. To what extent is the City involved in that? • Smith: We've installed lower electricity use bulbs. We're trying to catch the remodels and new buildings. We've said to facilities not to hesitate to call our staff when looking at the design of a new building. Our staff will sit down and talk. The City is making progress. • Donovan: Can you retrofit without doing a remodel? • Smith: Sometimes, such as in my office, the bulbs they wanted to put in required changing the fixture. • Ohlson: The key issue isn't if the City's changed every one. It's about retrofits and new buildings. Is there a City policy they have to go through? • Smith: No. • Ohlson: The City tells us what to do, from recycling to what lighting to purchase. And they don't even have a policy. It's inappropriate. • Pawar: You're right. We've had a couple things come up recently, far after the fact. Huge lost opportunities. There are different ways we will formally look at that, and try to work together with Utilities to apply it systemically. The sustainability inventory will lend itself valuably toward that need. • Ohlson: Is a different pricing structure being considered on demand side management? • Smith: Yes. • Donovan: What is the capacity for turbines, as far as the number of turbines that can be placed? • Smith: Probably thirty to forty. We have transmission problems. It's over- subscribed, there's more use during peak than there is capacity for. • Mason: One thing we haven't discussed is buying green tags for additional green energy capacity. It's something we can buy to offset CO2 emission offsets. We could get a bigger bang for our buck. It's something we should consider. • Donovan: What benefit would that be to the City? Natural Resources AdVory Board • October 2, 2002 Page 3 of 9 • Smith: It gives you credit that you can report. The biggest threat is having to build a new generation facility. It can have a lot of rate impact. It looks like around 2015 there will be the need for online additional baseline capacity. We're looking at options. It's at least seven years to go through the permitting process. • Donovan: A few months ago I got a survey call. It was a marketing survey. They asked if I was aware that PRPA is doing everything to be the most excellent environmental utility in the world. I'd like to find out the results of that survey. It's in the City's interest to see how PRPA is marketing it's services. • Smith: They surveyed customers in all four cities, especially businesses. I will get the results. • Ohlson: On page 1 it says that for years the citizens of Fort Collins have benefited from low electric rates. Why are we so proud? I don't mean to imply you should make money off your electric rates, but there seems to be an obsession with competitive rates and low rates. They don't take into account the destruction of the planet. We're saying we want to stay in the 25`h percentile. That's nothing to be proud of. It's a mark of shame unless you're doing everything possible to reduce environmental consequences. I'm curious of why we're so proud that we're low when it doesn't take into account all costs. • Mason: You don't consider our targets progressive? • Ohlson: I never start from that perspective on anything. I look to what is rational, fair and just. I'm not expecting perfection. What is the main goal? • Mason: Reducing CO2. • Ohlson: That's the primary focus. There are other environmental aspects. • Smith: If you look at the distribution of customers, we're looking at the median customer. Some are way outside of that. Those are the people we're after. We have to get the people on the edge first. Our customers tell us they want reliable low cost electricity. We also hear from the other customers who want to see changes. But, we still have a bunch of customers who say what's important to them is low cost reliable energy. • Ohlson: Powerful people in government should lead, and not just go with what the mob wants. • Smith: To do what we need to do is going to cost a lot of money. People are not paying their fair share. • Knowlton: I don't think "low cost" and "reliable" necessarily need to be together. If given a choice most people would pick reliable. Maybe you should stop putting them together, and instead say, we're going to provide reliable energy, but it's going to cost more. • Smith: We're going to need some help. We've gone for years doing things the easy way, and now it's time to pay the piper. How do we take care of people who cant afford higher raters. And, there's also competition. These are things we struggle with as staff. We see both sides. Staff sees the biggest problems facing the utility as increasing residential use. We're not going to change things by talking to people, block pricing is a very good way. Natural Resources Aory Board • October 2, 2002 Page 4 of 9 • Ohlson: And, it's fair. Most of the air conditioning going in is 1/3 to '/2 larger than what needs to be going in. • Smith: New homes are being built with oversized units. If you oversize it's almost as bad as under sizing. • Ohlson: Number 3 on the proposed policy, it says complete the electric system undergrounding program. When will that happen? • Smith: It's scheduled for the end of 2004. • Ohlson: Number 5. Can we encourage the PRPA to go underground in the future for any of those gigantic lines? • Smith: It's physically possible, but with the larger lines, when they're encased in conduit they produce so much heat there's a transfer problem. It's physically possible, but it costs a lot of money. • Ohlson: Is there a difference in cost if we use less energy during peak times? • Smith: For residential customers there isn't a difference unless you're on a demand rate. Even though you don't get a dollar benefit when you run off peak the system benefits. People on a demand meter become sensitive really quick. • Ohlson: Is there a card, or something, that's shows what the best time to use energy is? Something that could be put on the family bulletin board? • Knowlton: So the only folks on the demand rate are the ones with electric heat? • Smith: For the most part that's true. • Knowlton: So, its not something that will work for air conditioning? • Smith: We've wanted to look at recording demand for the large houses, and see what could be worked out. • Ohlson: Under # 1, the problem I have is this, why aren't those things apart of the cost of service? • Smith: Maybe that's not worded too well. We're not trying to infer it's not part of it. We're trying to make it a cost of service approach. • Ohslon: That 25`h percentile, and the low, low, low gets in the way for me. • Donovan: Now, or in the future, what are the options for base load generation? • Smith: Coal, gas or nuclear. • Donovan: Is it realistic to think that new nuclear plants will be sited and built in the short, or long, term? • Smith: There are some people who are absolute believers, who say that fifty years from now everything will be nuclear. • Donovan: What about fuel cells? • Smith: They have a better chance of being economical than solar technology. We have lots of sun, but we have to figure out how to harness and use it. • Ohlson: People could have fewer children, and use less energy. We could get to systemic change. • Ohlson: The environment part needs to be flushed out more. Don't just focus on CO2, and assume that Council members know there's habitat damage, water generation, wildlife, and transportation issues. • Panjabi: I agree about putting in the wildlife issues, and the other effects of getting the coal in the first place. Natural Resources AMory Board • October 2, 2002 Page 5 of 9 • Donovan: If the City was to look at options for a new water supply that included concrete, would it include a dam and not hydro, or would hydro be used to enhance the cost benefit? • Smith: We have to look at the need for energy. If you build a new dam you have to look at all hydro potential. It's a good electric resource. The biggest issue we face is not our water supply, but others water supply. The impact of what other cities do in our area is large. Our biggest threat is external. • Knowlton: Some people see that as an opportunity to put the brakes on growth up here. • Ohlson: In #9, Objectives for the Future, it says promote policies, it should say implement. • Smith: It's Council's job to approve and implement. What if we say promote and implement. • Ohlson: We appreciate you coming. Policy isn't always easy. If there needs to be more discussion, there's nothing wrong with delaying this, even for just a couple more months. • Knowlton: I would hope even if it's delayed that you wont back off the July deadline. • Donovan: We'll get this on the October 16 agenda. GOCO Conservation Easements, Edith Felchle Felchle said we have three projects in the PoudreBig Thompson Legacy grant that we're ready to take to Council. This is the tool GOCO uses to ensure long term protection. The reason it was added at the last minute was wording negotiations. To the extent possible I like to have things in order before I put it on the agenda. It just became apparent in the last few days that we would have everything together in time for the October 15 Council agenda. GOCO has been pushing to get this done. • Ryder: The easements will be held by the Land Trust. I won't be voting but can answer some questions. • Ohlson: Why couldn't this be done on the two November agendas? • Felchle: We cant sign it until ten days after second reading. By the time it's recorded we could be short on time. • Pawar: It not an impossibility. It's your prerogative, we do need your recommendation. It's part of the requirements. We have an application for outstanding GOCO monies. The GOCO board is looking closely at the way we bring to closure our current GOCO grant. • Donovan: A word on process. There are deadlines, but it's my feeling that it's a little out of whack when this process can take 18 months, GOCO can take their time, and when they're done to expect it to go to Council and get approved or you jeopardize getting the grant. • Pawar: Our responsiveness is the sensitivity of the outstanding Legacy Grant. If that weren't the case we would likely not have the same sense of urgency. Natural Resources A*ory Board • October 2, 2002 Page 6 of 9 • Donovan: I have a paragraph that I want Edith to give to the City Attorney, and I have copies. It deals with the sunshine law, and it was part of a paragraph in an earlier document. I'd appreciate it if we try to incorporate it into documents. • Ryder: Those were in the covenants, I believe. • Donovan: Since we're not talking about covenants, but we're talking about conservation easements, I'd like the City to talk about that issue as it relates to conservation easements. Attorneys for the Land Trust didn't want those in there, and they got it negotiated out in the last couple years. • Ryder: They've never been in any easements, they've been in covenants. • Donovan: But covenants are no longer being used, right? Since the conservation easement is the vehicle, that issue needs to be addressed. If a private or non-profit entity is the holder, and they are not subject to open meeting laws there's a problem from the perspective of tax dollars being used. • Pawar: If you want this as an agenda item we can bring in Carrie to talk about it. Linda Knowlton made the following motion: Move that the NRAB recommends Council authorize the grant to Legacy Land Trust of conservation easements of these three properties; Nix Natural Area, Cattail Chorus and McMurray Annex. Arvind Panjabi seconded the motion. • Donovan: I have a few comments for the record. Regarding Cattail Chorus, on page 3, where it talks about timber harvesting. It says that utility crews may remove trees to prevent injury or property damage. I realize Utilities has easements to cross natural areas, and they have their right of access. When the City Utilities has to go in and do something to deal with repair or replacement, I'm concerned there's not always communication between City departments. It's the City organization as a whole that needs to adopt and be responsible for the deed of conservation easements. I want to make it clear that there needs to be sensitivity from the Utilities Department about entering these areas, and that they notify the NRD before they do, so that there's consultation. • Ohlson: In these, or in future ones, we need notification as to what they're going to do. Why not in these? Why not make sure there's notification and coordination with all of the affected people? • Donovan: I'd like to emphasize this is a point to consider for future work on the natural area easement policy. • Sears: That's addressed in the current easement policy. • Ohlson: They don't have an easement to trim trees, they a have a right of way. Not everything is covered by easement policies. • Donovan: Does the easement policy only apply to external entities? • Sear: It applies to everyone. Natural Resources Advisory Board • October 2, 2002 Page 7 of 9 • Ryder: First of all, I'm a little irritated I didn't get this. I'm not prepared to be a decent representative of what we're trying to accomplish. The easement is between the City and the Land Trust • Donovan: There are two things, the internal discussion, and access for repair and maintenance damage. How do they get to the easement? They're going to cross areas that are not contained in the easement. I think the responsibility the Land Trust is accepting is to make sure that things like that don't damage anything. • Ryder: I don't know if there are any easements on Cattail Chorus, but I agree, that could be an obligation. • Felchle: The process you're comparing this to is the one that requires notification in the trails paragraph. It's something the Land Trust would need to be notified of and approve what's being proposed to do. • Ryder: I don't think it's approval. • Ohlson: You've seen what they do. It's like a clear cut goes through the natural areas. It would be nice if we had a natural areas person there. • Donovan: As Edith mentioned the notice requirement is there generally, and it also applies to the relocation and paving of trails. But as I mentioned, if we're thinking about relocating a trail or do repair and maintenance, Utilities is going to be unlikely to send out for process before they go in and do this maintenance. If we make a recommendation tonight, and if the head of the NRD says it's not a big deal I guess I'm ok. I am trying to figure out why we don't just move this to the second meeting in October. • Ohlson: I didn't know we were having a second meting in October. • Donovan: We wanted to make a recommendation on the water supply policy. I wanted to talk about it tonight, and what the board's recommendation might be, and hopefully have a draft memo for the 16`h so we can plug into that. • Knowlton: Why isn't it on the agenda? That's a big item to throw on. • Donovan: I agree that we don't need to have the hour long discussion tonight. If we're going to weigh into Council we have to do it at the meeting on the 161h. If we're going to defer these I'd like to get peoples comments before then. • Knowlton: Why can't we vote on these easements tonight? This sounds like a discussion for future easements. • Donovan: I wanted to discuss the issues I found in the context of future easements, but Kelly said if they're important let's get them into these easements. If it's not a deal breaker it can be rolled into these. • Ohlson: Let's pass them tonight with the caveat that we'll get feedback of if it works out. Ohlson made the following friendly amendment: Move that we attempt in these three conservation easements, if it doesn't create problems of adoption in the appropriate time table, to build in the issues of notification and coordination with all appropriate parties related to access in the protected lands. Natural Resources Allory Board • October 2, 2002 Page 8 of 9 • Murphy: I'm relatively confused, and little bit irritated. How do we waste so much time? I'm looking at the whole board, and how the agenda is put together. This is getting frustrating. I'm not blaming anyone. There are materials we're talking about that I haven't seen. There's no way I'm voting yes, because I don't think I can do it intelligently. • Pawar: I take responsibility for this, we'll get you the hard copies. • Donovan: I think as far as staff was concerned this was something that could be routinely approved. • Murphy: I'm not criticizing that we took two hours on the electric policy. We do that all of the time. We keep putting certain things off. I want some realism in the agenda. • Pawar: I take responsibility for the times on the agenda. I appreciate your frustration with getting things at the last minute. • Murphy: I understand it's going to happen at times. • Knowlton: Since we're venting about agendas, I have records of how far off we get. All of the stuff that needs a vote should be put at the beginning. We can use a lot more discipline on this board. We beat things to death. We might have to run meetings according to Roberts Rules. We need to exercise more discipline. • Donovan: That's been one of the things I've tried to do. Tonight the electric policy didn't allow it. Maybe it's the responsibility of the chair to do what I tried to do on the water supply issue. • Knowlton: You should have seen there would be problems with bringing up the easement issue, and having a discussion about a document no one else has seen. • Knowlton: Call the question. The motion passed with 5 members in favor, one member, Phil Murphy, abstaining, and one member, Steve Ryder, present but not voting. Land Conservation Update, Mark Sears Sears said the offer on the Tom Brown property that we discussed about 3 meetings ago has been accepted. If the details are worked out we should sign off by the end of the week. The whole thing is fee simple. • Rodriguez: Who will ultimately manage that property? • Sears: The City will, it's not a joint purchase. Sustainability Update, Michelle Pawar Pawar said the inventory was set back because Allison Quaid was out of the country. Allison and Margit have put together indicators. The chapters have been finished in draft from and sent back to the point people. Substantive data has been provided that could lead to progressive policies. We're in the final throes of a draft form. It's very long. • Ohlson: So we won't get it on Saturday before a meeting? • Pawar: I will try to get it out a couple weeks in advance. • Rodriguez: Is the ultimate goal to set some standards that the City will adhere to? Indicators are meaningless without standards. Natural Resources Aory Board October 2, 2002 Page 9 of 9 Pawar: It's one of several potential goals. The fundamental driver behind the inventory was to review the beginning of the Framework for Environmental Action. There's lots of different potential with this. You will have the opportunity to weigh in on next steps and outcomes and goals. Ohlson: I saw the Clerk and Legal offices. environmental from recycling to lighting. done that can be done environmentally. I would guess there wasn't anything I would like to see, in the future, anything • Donovan: Can we get this on the December agenda? • Pawar: As soon as I have a copy, you'll get a copy. Linda Knowlton and Kelly Ohlson would like hard copies. New Business • Ohlson: What is the status of the new air quality monitoring station? Will it be up for this air pollution season? Review and Approval of Minutes September 4, 2002: Page 3, 17th bullet — remove "This is bizarre." Page 7, 6th bullet — change to "Move away from using the percentage of diversion rate as the deciding factor in recycling achievement. Page 6, 3`d bullet — Strike entire sentence. September 18, 2002: Page 2,6th bullet — correct to 5 projections and one demand scenario Page 2„9 h bullet — correct to "plan for droughts like this from the supply side. The minutes of September 4, 2002, and the minutes of September 18, 2002 were unanimously approved with 6 votes in favor and one member, Steve Ryder, abstaining due to the fact he was not present at the September 18 meeting. New Business • There will be a work session on Wednesday, October 16, 2002. • Donovan: We've talked about having a board retreat. We're looking at the middle of January. • Donovan: The Futures Committee needs to schedule a meeting. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. �\1�70 ucno \\ 10 4 U a�